Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:GAN)
MainCriteriaInstructionsNominationsBacklog drivesMentorshipDiscussionReassessmentReport
Good article nominations
Good article nominations
Shortcut

This is the discussion page for good article nominations (GAN) and the good articles process in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.

GA bot[edit]

Titanic Memorial (Washington, D.C.) passed GA this morning and the bot hasn't added the icon or left me the standard message. Is there a glitch in the matrix? APK hi :-) (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article hasn't been added to the GA Lists, although this is probably not the issue. Will add it now. CMD (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie This is at mismatches now. I'm happy to fix it manually, but checking if you want to troubleshoot this. CMD (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and fix it manually; thanks. I had a look but can't tell what happened, but the bot did crash at around the time it should have promoted this article. I have an idea as to what caused the crash and will be trying to fix it soon -- it is happening every now and then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done manually. CMD (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting GA quick fail[edit]

Child abuse in association football have been quickly failed for WP:COPYWITHIN and WP:OR. While the 1st is a quick fix (that I have done) there is no clear details about the later (see Talk:Child abuse in association football/GA1). I have asked @Schierbecker to provide more elaborate answer as I want to improve the article and did not receive any reply although the editor is active. I understand there is no deadline here but not providing a coherent feedback from the beginning makes it hard to resolve the issues and - sometimes - contesting the editor decision as these decision are not made in vacuum and the assessor does not hold absolute powers to promote or fail an article. I wonder if other editors can take a look and either become a WP:3O or provide a more substance to the quick fail to help me improve the article. At the end of the day the GA process is there to help improve articles up to our standards and this is a very important topic that I truly want to get it right. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Schierbecker was thinking, but at a quick glance the first thing I notice is that there are five paragraphs of text (375 words) in the section §Definitions, of which the first sentence (36 words) is actually about child abuse in football; the remaining four paragraphs do not mention football at all and the sources all appear to be about child abuse more generally.
Once we get into the stuff which is actually about child abuse in football, it all seems to be random collections of stuff: for instance, all we are told about France is that "Ahmed G., former amateur football coach, was sentenced to 18 years for sexually abusing and raping young players." Is this an important fact about Child abuse in association football? Is this the only, or most significant, case of child abuse in association football in France? It's unclear, because the only source is a contemporary news report. This is an article about a broad social issue, but it seems to be made up of a patchwork of random claims sourced to reports about individual examples of the issue: what it really needs is to be based on reliable sources about child abuse in football generally. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section title is “Known cases by country” not sure what are you confusing there.
The definition of child abuse in general is needed because it’s not different from football. It is not like there is a football specific kind of child abuse.
the section also goes into details about other aspects relating specifically to child abuse in football FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separately from Caeciliusinhorto's insightful comments on this specific article, to answer the question of "contesting" a quickfail in general: there is no process for contesting a quickfail. If you think the reviewer was wrong and they aren't amenable to changing their opinion, you can always renominate the article. Keep in mind that any future reviewer may well agree with the first quickfail, and a failure to address valid concerns from prior reviews is explicitly a quickfail criteria in and of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be a huge waste of time to re-nominate the article without addressing the first reviewer comments. It will be a circular argument if the first reviewer did not comment properly and the next reviewer just agreed with them because they can read minds which I currently can’t (working on it. And that is why I am here FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, pinging or replying on an article's talk page doesn't necessarily notify an editor. Make sure to check the editor's talk page and inform them before posting here. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, exactly. That is how it works though. Unless you think the GA Review was done in bad faith (in which case, this isn't the venue for a grievance), you can't change someone's mind about an article. If you fundamentally disagree with what they say, simply renominate. If you agree that it needs work, but want time to make those changes, just make the changes and renominate. You can't force someone to wait. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that raising the issue here (as indeed the OP has done) would be a legitimate course of action if you think the quick fail is simply inaccurate. That doesn't have to imply bad faith, merely that something fundamental was missed. Clearly not the case here, as we see from the replies - this quick fail was justified - but making someone renominate and go to the back of the queue again when maybe no other editor would have quick failed it, seems somewhat harsh.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that the renomination should happen regardless, and a comment here stating your thoughts and allowing another editor to pick up the second review if they agred is a better course of action. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your core sources establishing the subject of the article? Because at a glance, I can't see that the article has a backbone that forms its scope. Looking at the first 31 citations, only citations 1 and 2 discuss the subject of 'child abuse in assocation football', and then citations 28 and 31 discuss the more general subject of 'child abuse in sport' (the latter of the two being focused on Zambia specifically). The remaining sources may in instances provide support for the article, such as providing a definition of child abuse, but these should be supplementary. They shouldn't be predominant within the article. They also generally shouldn't be necessary. If a source doesn't comment on the article topic directly, it probably doesn't belong in the article. Consequently, there is copious material that isn't tied to the topic concretely and is probably extraneous. As is, the mainframe of the article is closer to a 'list of instances of child abuse in association football' with an unfocused definition section than it is to an article on 'child abuse in association football'. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“instances of child abuse in association football” that is a good title as child abuse is child abuse. FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only parts of the article that are WP:DUE are the first paragraph of the "Definition" section and a highly summarised version of the "Children safeguarding in football" section. Everything else is extraneous information that should probably be cut. The "Statistics" section in particular strikes me as particularly WP:SYNTH-like; this may be what the reviewer was referring to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Zuckerberg[edit]

Would anyone be willing to review the aforementioned article? I assure the community here that this is not a drive-by nomination. I am the article's second-highest editor and the fifth-largest author. Furthermore, the four authors ranking above me in terms of authorship have been inactive for a long time. Victor Trevor last made an edit on English Wikipedia in October 2023, Soulparadox in April 2018, Light Show in March 2024 (though he has made only 37 edits to English Wikipedia since November 2021 and none to Zuckerberg's since March 2017), and Likeanechointheforest since May 2023. Hence, I look forward to someone taking it up for GA-class assessment. I will most willingly respond to any comments made on the GA Review talk page so that the article can be improved to GA-class. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that GA nominations may take a long time to be reviewed, usually many months, and there's no order or predictable timetable to it. You'll just have to be patient. In the meantime, why don't you review someone else's article? It is not required, but you can benefit your own nomination by just reducing the number of open nominations awaiting review. That way, when a new potential reviewer shows up, there would be a higher chance that yours will be the one selected. Cambalachero (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not discrediting your work here, but fifth-largest author is a fairly generous phasing when it's 2.5% of the prose. I understand that the other authors are not active, but some things are just not reasonable to GA when no single author has contributed to that degree. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc's attempts to persuade people that he is lead author or editor, when he has a tiny proportion of the authorship are well known, and frankly getting tiring by now, particularly when they have been told several times. " I have 14.7% authorship whereas you, Keivan, have 8.5% authorship", "I am the second highest author", "I have 4.2% of the article attributed", It was a mistake on my part that I claimed to be a significant contributor to Sherlock Holmes' article", "I have made the ssecond largest number of edits to the article and further rank among the top 15 in authorship"... in all these cases, they are either only technically a ranking author in number of bytes or characters, never, that I could find, in actual prose additions, or anything else that persuades me through demonstration that they understand the material. And when the sheer number of discussions and editors becomes disruptive, well. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree; I want to assume good faith here, but taking an article mainly written by others and doing a couple tweaks before submitting it to GAN seems pretty firmly against the spirit of things here. When other people have done far more for the article, even if they're inactive, they're the one who deserve the recognition, not the final person to add a couple finishing touches. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that the GA process is about the article, not the editor. The rules about the "main" editor are only meant to prevent clashes over who gets to decide if the article is ready for nomination, to answer the points that may be made during the discussion, and other tasks related to the process. It's not meant to be an award. If a user finds a decent but abandoned article and nobody else minds if he does so, he may nominate it and manage the discussion as if he had written it himself. Cambalachero (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. If Stephen Hawking wrote the best article Wikipedia has ever seen and forgot to nominate it for GA/FA, I wouldn't insist that it remain B-class forever just because he's dead and no one could hope to improve it. MSinccc has posted an appropriate message on the talk page, and if the nomination is successful, I don't think anyone would mind one of the original editprs putting a GA badge on their userpage if they return. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did leave a message on the article talk page. To note all facts, all the authors above me are presently inactive as I have previously mentioned. In that case, the article will never come to GA-class status. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that I'm still learning and growing, being a kid. I've dedicated considerable time and energy to contribute significantly to all the successful GA promotions attributed to me. My sincere desire was to elevate the aforementioned article to GA-class, and I've diligently worked towards that goal. I eagerly await feedback from others. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made numerous prose additions to the articles of William and Catherine. I've never run a bot on those articles (the ones I ran had to be reverted as they were from Google Books). Furthermore, I've given up my claims of authorship on the Sherlock Holmes article. Also, I did contribute significantly to Philip's article to make it GA-worthy. Regards and yours faithfully. MSincccc (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and @Generalissima I'm not sure why Serial Number 54129 is questioning my genuine claims of authorship in the articles I've contributed to over the last two and a half years. MSincccc (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have consistently misrepresented your contributions at the expense of others. Because you have repeatedly been told your approach is wearing. Because you seem to regard GAs as a right. And because you have never attempted to change your approach even when being called out on being wrong (see discussions passim, cf. Sherlock, cited above). ——Serial Number 54129 18:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sherlock Holmes article and its drive-by nomination have become a strawman by now. I have apologised and not repeated my offence. I am open to suggestions to improve my work here, and I have kept my word. Regarding this article, I have contributed to it over the last two-plus years and am quite familiar with its content. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might come across better if you framed any future posts in this vein along the lines of explaining the work you have done on the article, your familiarity with the sources, etc, as opposed to just saying "I have such-and-such authorship percentage." The first is substantive, the second is merely a statistic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's practically the opposite of what I suggested. Do you understand what I mean when I say "explaining the work you have done on the article, your familiarity with the sources"? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos Apologies for any confusion. I'm well-versed in the events to be covered in Catherine and William's articles, the appropriate sources to cite, and the preferred wording. I've extensively worked on citation parameters and articles using British English. Currently, I'm focused on articles about David Cameron and Liz Truss, two former British prime ministers. In the future, I aim to bring articles on William, Catherine, and Bill Gates to FAC once I find relevant book sources and more high-quality content to support the nominations. Being a child, I'm open to suggestions and would appreciate mentorship, especially regarding GA nominations like this one for Zuckerberg. Wishing you all a great day ahead (though it's already evening here). Regards. MSincccc (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. That's the kind of post you should be making when you're preparing to bring these articles to GA. Don't highlight authorship percentages, highlight the substantive work you've done. You'll get much less pushback. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that Liz Truss was promoted to FA last October, and the FA nominee is still active as a steward on the article. I’m not sure it needs any additional work done on it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone genuinely wanted to get Mark Zuckerberg to GA, I assume they'd do the basics and at least sort out the WP:LEAD, which is full of novel information. Lawyering about authorship when the basics haven't been done is not promising. If it is not withdrawn I am inclined to quickfail it. CMD (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if a reviewer could provide some comments that I can then endeavour to address. I would be glad if a reviewer left some comments which I will try to follow. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a specific comment above. At any rate, GAN is not meant to be peer review. CMD (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I meant that instead of quick failing the nomination, it would be helpful if the reviewer who eventually assesses the article leaves constructive comments that I can address to improve the chances of the article becoming a successful GA. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to address the comment I left above? CMD (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. @Chipmunkdavis. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I've condensed the lead section and relocated all citations except for the Forbes references, which pertains to net worth, to the article body. I'm proceeding in good faith and welcome any feedback that could enhance the article's chances of becoming a GA. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is his net worth and Times Person of the Year accolade not relevant for the body? CMD (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be integrated into the article body, and I'm prepared to do so. However, if we opt for this approach, it would need to be applied consistently for all billionaires whose net worth is sourced from either Bloomberg or Forbes and deemed relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia. This includes figures like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jensen Huang, among others.
Additional comment: @Chipmunkdavis, Could you please review the article and provide feedback there? This way, I can address the comments and work towards the article achieving GA status. It's just a request. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in this, but I, for one, find it extremely irritating when GA nominators nominate obviously-subpar articles, without a clue why they are subpar, and then expect reviewers to hold their hand as they go step by step through a rewrite of the article. That is not what reviewers are for. If you are going to nominate an article, you should (1) understand the GA criteria, at the level of being able to conduct a competent review, (2) review the article you are about to nominate, yourself, and find the points where it might not meet the criteria, and (3) fix the article, on your own, to clean up the problems you found in your self-review.
What you seem to be expecting instead is that someone else does all of the work in finding problems, and all of the work in describing step-by-step how to fix those problems, and then you get all the credit for the GA for being their typist. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to claim credit for a GA if the article is being improved based on the reviewer's feedback. CMD suggested removing the Forbes citations related to Zuckerberg's net worth from the article lead. My response was that if we remove them, it should be done consistently for other billionaires' articles as well. Currently, the article is well-written with no cleanup tags, unreliable sources, and clear and consistent prose. I've been working on the article for over two years. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that the article in question, as well as others you mention, adhere to WP:LEAD. Such adherence is per WP:GACR a component of being "well-written". CMD (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I have moved the Forbes and Time references to the article body under the "Recognition" section. Thanks for your advice. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Blackpink/GA1[edit]

This nomination was opened for review by Garethphua on 18 April but the actual review was never conducted; today, 750h+ failed the review, writing, I am failling this nomination as the reviewer is an unexperienced user with only 15 edits. Unfortunately, this is not the proper process—the nomination should not have been failed, but either the review unwound or deleted—and 750+'s advice to nominator Nkon21, you may renominate the article, would have lost the nomination over six months of seniority in one fell swoop, since it dated back to 4 October 2023.

I have removed the inappropriate failure (in the form of a FailedGA template) from the article talk page and reinstated the original GA nominee template with page=2 and the 4 October 2023 date. Apologies to Nkon21 for the inconvenience. I hope that a more experienced reviewer ultimately selects your article to review. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my apologies for this. The Sydney Morning Herald 16:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page was blanked, then restored, and is currently the subject of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Blackpink/GA1. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i didnt understand how the GA review system works, i accidentaly opened the review and didnt know how to close it.
i didnt find the review instructions clear, i suggest those who know how to edit the instructions to do so. Thanks in advance and apologies for the inconvenience. Garethphua (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Garethphua, it is not much of an inconvenience. Could you clarify which part of the review instructions you found unclear? Or perhaps missing? This would help us in refining. Best, CMD (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN count of GAs now includes GAs that are now FAs or have been delisted[edit]

Per this discussion I've changed ChristieBot to assign a GA promotion count to an editor by counting all GAs that were promoted, regardless of whether they are still GAs. There are a couple of pros and cons to this change:

  • SDZeroBot (which maintains the count used up to now) does not include any articles that are no longer GAs.
  • SDZeroBot does not include counts for editors whose name includes an apostrophe, though for Tim O'Doherty the maintainer did a manual update. I think Tim is the only editor active at GAN with an apostrophe in their name, so this was not a current problem.
  • ChristieBot does not include any GAs that predate the use of subpages for GAs (i.e. "/GA1" as part of the page name). SDZeroBot does include these. There are several hundred GAs like this but there are no active editors with more than a handful of GAs that old, so I hope this will have no noticeable effect on the counts.

Please let me know if anyone sees a problem with the new numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crusading movement: several cases of plagiarism[edit]

As the nominator (Norfolkbigfish) has failed to detect several cases of plagiarism in the article crusading movement for three weeks, I think the reassessment process can be closed, and the article should be delisted. The article should as soon as possible be restored into the redirect page it used to be before Norfolkbigfish filled the article with texts copied from copyrighted material. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been listed at WP:CPN, which will handle the question of whether the article needs to be revdelled/redirected. If the copyright clerks decide yes, than the GAR close will be procedural. I suggest waiting for that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN statistics tool now shows current state of the article[edit]

Per a suggestion from Bilorv, the GAN statistics tool has been updated to add a column that indicates if the article is currently a GA, FA, or neither. This has significantly slowed the tool down, so I may add a checkbox to make it optional to report this. By "slow", I mean it takes about a second for every ten GA reviews + nominations to be reported on. The most prolific GA reviewer/nominator has nearly two thousand articles to display, which means it will take their page about two or three minutes to refresh. For most people it should respond in under twenty seconds.

The tool looks for the strings "{{featured article}}" and "{{good article}}" in the article text, and assumes that anything that doesn't have either is either delisted or was not promoted. As usual, let me know of any issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, works for me on smaller accounts well, but time adds up fast as you note. Any chance checking for a category on the talkpage would be faster? CMD (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so -- the slowness is caused by having to open each of the GAs as a Wikipedia page, and doing that for the talk page probably wouldn't be faster. I just realized I could probably open the various GA listing pages and check for those, however, and similarly for the FAs. That could be faster. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried that change and reverted it; it was unreliable because so many GAs are still in the GA pages under names that are now redirects. I'll see if I can think of another way to do it, perhaps with categories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be the case. Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches lists only four. Sometimes it gets backlogged up to the 20s, but shouldn't be a noticeable percentage of GAs. CMD (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I will take another look; perhaps I misinterpreted the results I got. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the code to use the GA lists and it is a little faster, though it still takes about two minutes for the most prolific users. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! Do you need to check the article text or would it be enough to check whether the talk page is in Category:Wikipedia featured articles etc? Also, I am confused how my GA/FA for Anna Blackburne ended up in the "Physics and astronomy" subtopic; I don't think it belongs there. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subtopic codes are a bit haphazard; "natsci" is presented as the "primary keyword" for all Natural sciences, but actually codes for the physics and astronomy subtopic. I have changed it to "biology". CMD (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super, thank you! —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crosspost: Complex copyright issue[edit]

I'd be particularly interested in input from participants here at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Complex_copyright_issue since it involves a current GA. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older GARs needing comments[edit]

Posting here to encourage participation in reassessments from more people than the regulars at the GAR page. These are older discussions where improvement is not ongoing and which could use more participation.

Any comments on the above would be useful. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=1221496549"